Crypto.com says market maker boosts liquidity, denies trading edge on customers

cointelegraphОпубліковано о 2025-12-23Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-23

Анотація

Crypto.com is establishing an internal market-making team to support its expansion into prediction markets, a move it states is fully compliant with regulations and designed to boost liquidity. The company denies its internal team has any unfair advantage, asserting it does not get a "first look" at customer orders or proprietary data. It emphasized that all market makers operate under the same rules to ensure fairness and that proprietary trading is not a revenue source. The practice is common among competitors like Kalshi and Polymarket, which also use market makers to provide liquidity.

Cryptocurrency exchange Crypto.com is building an internal market-making team as part of its expansion into prediction markets, a move the company says is fully aligned with federal regulations and intended to improve liquidity, even as market-making in outcome-based trading continues to draw scrutiny.

Bloomberg reported Tuesday that the exchange is recruiting for a new role on its market-making desk, citing a job posting for a “quant trader” who would help buy and sell contracts tied to the outcomes of sporting events on Crypto.com’s prediction platform.

Source: Bloomberg

The report has drawn attention to the practice of exchanges facilitating trading against customer orders, a structure that can raise questions about conflicts of interest as prediction markets gain traction across both crypto and traditional finance.

In a statement to Cointelegraph, a Crypto.com spokesperson said the company’s internal trading team is fully disclosed to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission and makes markets across its North American derivatives business.

“The bottom line for customers is [that] more competition and liquidity on the platform creates a better overall experience,” the spokesperson said, adding that internal and external market makers operate under the same rules to ensure market fairness and integrity.

“No market maker at Crypto.com gets a ‘first look’, and our internal market maker does not have access to proprietary data or customer order flow before other market makers or market participants,” the spokesperson said.

They added that Crypto.com does not rely on proprietary trading as a revenue source. “We have a simple business model providing our retail customers access to digital assets for a fee, while staying risk neutral," they said.

Related: Phantom taps Kalshi to offer regulated prediction markets in wallet

Market-making isn’t unique to Crypto.com

Crypto.com is not the only prediction-market operator to rely on market makers to support liquidity.

The Bloomberg report noted that competitors such as Kalshi and Polymarket also use professional trading companies or dedicated liquidity providers to facilitate trading on their platforms.

Kalshi, which operates a federally regulated event-contract exchange, relies on designated market makers rather than a purely peer-to-peer order book, and those arrangements have largely been public. It has been reported that quantitative trading company Susquehanna International Group has provided market-making services to Kalshi since 2024, helping supply liquidity as trading volumes surged.

Polymarket, a decentralized prediction market that drew widespread attention during the US presidential election for accurately predicting the outcome, is also building an internal market-making unit, according to Bloomberg.

Polymarket’s monthly volumes began to surge in the run-up to the 2024 US presidential election. Source: Dune

Related: DraftKings eyes crypto offerings as it expands into prediction markets

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the primary reason Crypto.com is building an internal market-making team, according to the company?

ACrypto.com states that building an internal market-making team is intended to improve liquidity and create a better overall experience for customers, and it is fully aligned with federal regulations.

QHow does Crypto.com address concerns about conflicts of interest and unfair advantages for its internal market maker?

ACrypto.com states that its internal market maker does not get a 'first look' at proprietary data or customer order flow before other market participants, and all market makers operate under the same rules to ensure fairness and integrity.

QBesides Crypto.com, which other prediction-market operators use market makers to support liquidity, as mentioned in the article?

AThe article mentions that competitors such as Kalshi and Polymarket also use professional trading companies or dedicated liquidity providers to facilitate trading on their platforms.

QWhat is Crypto.com's stated business model regarding proprietary trading and revenue?

ACrypto.com states that it does not rely on proprietary trading as a revenue source and has a simple business model of providing retail customers access to digital assets for a fee while staying risk neutral.

QWhich quantitative trading company has been reported to provide market-making services to Kalshi since 2024?

AQuantitative trading company Susquehanna International Group has been reported to provide market-making services to Kalshi since 2024.

Пов'язані матеріали

AI Boosting Efficiency and Cutting Costs Makes VC Increasingly Expensive

"AI for Cost Reduction Makes VC Funding More Expensive" Despite the "cost-reduction and efficiency" narrative of AI, venture capital (VC) investment in the AI sector is becoming increasingly costly. While AI tools lower the initial costs for many startups—with team sizes shrinking across funding stages—the market is polarizing. For top-tier AI teams, especially those from leading companies like Google and OpenAI, funding rounds are now larger and valuations are higher than ever at the seed and early stages. For example, new ventures by prominent researchers are securing billions in funding with valuations reaching tens of billions before having a mature product. This creates a "barbell" market: lightweight startups need less capital, while elite AI firms attract massive investments early on. This dynamic raises the cost for VCs to acquire and maintain meaningful ownership stakes. As valuations soar early, securing the same equity percentage requires significantly larger capital commitments. VCs must now invest more upfront and reserve substantial funds for follow-on rounds to avoid dilution, prompting large firms like Accel and a16z to raise massive new funds. Consequently, capital is concentrating intensely in a few perceived winners like OpenAI and Anthropic, widening the gap between large and small VC funds. While high valuations bake in future growth expectations, they also compress potential returns, demanding that portfolio companies achieve unprecedented scale. For major VCs, the core strategy is clear: secure early positions in potential winners and maintain the capital to keep investing as valuations rapidly escalate.

marsbit24 хв тому

AI Boosting Efficiency and Cutting Costs Makes VC Increasingly Expensive

marsbit24 хв тому

An Eight-Year Investment Takes a Sharp Turn: Why Did Ethereum Suddenly Abandon Poseidon?

On August 13, Ethereum researcher Justin Drake announced a significant shift in Ethereum's Layer-1 cryptographic roadmap: abandoning the SNARK-friendly hash function Poseidon in favor of traditional functions like SHA2 or BLAKE2. This decision ends eight years of research and investment, marking a major revision to the post-quantum security strategy. Poseidon, introduced in 2019, was highly efficient for zkRollups and zkVMs within SNARK circuits. However, its need for prolonged cryptanalysis and the pressing timeline for quantum resistance revealed limitations. Recent breakthroughs in SNARK design, specifically using binary fields, now enable traditional, battle-tested hash functions to perform as efficiently as Poseidon within SNARKs. Benchmarks show modern laptops can now verify over a million traditional hash calls per second. This change is partly driven by accelerated concerns over quantum computing threats. Reports warn that "Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computers" could break current blockchain signatures like ECDSA by the early 2030s, risking trillions in assets. Ethereum's response focuses on hash-based post-quantum signature schemes, deemed more quantum-resistant than some lattice-based alternatives under pressure from AI cryptanalysis. Ethereum's updated post-quantum roadmap targets a production-ready "leanVM" for signature aggregation by 2027, with full deployment across consensus, execution, and data layers by 2028. The shift to mature hash functions like SHA2 reduces reliance on newer algorithms and aligns with the goal of using widely analyzed cryptographic primitives. Other major blockchains are also preparing. Solana's core teams have independently chosen the NIST-standardized Falcon signature scheme for its compact size. Starknet plans a phased migration, starting with replacing its Pedersen hash with BLAKE2. Ethereum's move signifies a strategic pivot towards proven security foundations for the quantum era.

marsbit1 год тому

An Eight-Year Investment Takes a Sharp Turn: Why Did Ethereum Suddenly Abandon Poseidon?

marsbit1 год тому

Programmers Worldwide Are Wasting Money on Anthropic! The Company Can't Stand It Anymore

Anthropic recently published guidelines to help developers using Claude Code reduce unnecessary token costs. The key recommendations include: 1) Clear (/clear) conversations after completing a task to avoid carrying irrelevant file reads and command outputs into the next task. 2) Set the model and reasoning effort level at the start of a session, as switching mid-session invalidates the prompt cache, requiring a full-price recalculation of the entire dialog history. 3) Attach files using @ references instead of typing paths manually to avoid extra tool calls and searches that bloat the context. 4) Add quiet flags to verbose commands (e.g., in CLAUDE.md) to minimize lengthy output in the dialog history. 5) Use /compact while the session cache is still warm (before breaks) to compress the dialog at one-tenth the cost. 6) Offload large-output tasks to a sub-agent, which runs in an isolated context and only returns conclusions, preventing intermediate outputs from polluting the main dialog. The article explains token pricing: input tokens (prefill) are processed in parallel, while output tokens (decode) are generated serially, making output tokens five times more expensive. Caching is crucial for savings—if a request's prefix (system prompt, CLAUDE.md, dialog history) matches the previous one byte-for-byte, reading it costs only 10% of the standard input price. However, cache invalidation occurs when changing models, effort levels, fast mode, compressing dialogs, after cache expiration, or when resuming old sessions. Dialog history also grows quadratically (O(n²)) as file contents and command outputs accumulate, increasing costs per round. Proactive context management—like isolating noisy tasks, using /rewind to trim unproductive turns, and task-based session clearing—is becoming an essential skill for cost-effective AI-assisted development.

marsbit3 год тому

Programmers Worldwide Are Wasting Money on Anthropic! The Company Can't Stand It Anymore

marsbit3 год тому

Pax Silica vs. WAICO: The US Wants to Prohibit Europe from Using Chinese Artificial Intelligence

The United States is preparing to demand that European and other partners abandon Chinese artificial intelligence initiatives, threatening exclusion from the American-led "Pax Silica" coalition, according to a leaked U.S. State Department document. This ultimatum forces signatories of the "AI Opportunity Statement" to choose between the Western technological ecosystem and alternative frameworks, with China not explicitly named but clearly targeted. Pax Silica is a U.S. strategy for AI and semiconductor hegemony, launched in late 2025. Its European presence expanded significantly in mid-2026. Concurrently, China, Russia, and 27 other nations established the World AI Cooperation Organization (WAICO) in July 2026 as an independent intergovernmental platform promoting AI governance based on UN principles. This situation creates a difficult choice, especially for European nations balancing strategic autonomy with dependence on U.S. tech and security. It also pressures Global South countries with pragmatic ties to both Washington and Beijing. The formation of competing blocks risks fragmenting the global tech landscape, forcing companies to split supply chains, increasing costs, and potentially leading to incompatible standards and protocols. The era of open globalization in AI may be ending, replaced by geopolitical confrontation where technological sovereignty trumps economic efficiency. The decisions made will shape the global digital economy for decades.

cryptonews.ru5 год тому

Pax Silica vs. WAICO: The US Wants to Prohibit Europe from Using Chinese Artificial Intelligence

cryptonews.ru5 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片